ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

I'd like to respond to the debate between Adam Greenwood and Peta Waters-Dewhurst (16 January, page 28) and the letters in the following issue.

We work with prostitutes and we have not yet met a woman working the streets who felt she had made a positive career choice or enjoyed what she did.

We have, however, met women subjected to violence and intimidation, traded between drug dealers to work to pay off someone else's debts. Prostitutes are far more likely to be raped or murdered than other women. The world of prostitution is a seedy, dirty and dangerous one, which seeks to ensnare the most vulnerable.

I have met many women whose careers in prostitution began in childhood and who remain trapped by homelessness, intimidation, violence and addiction. Attitudes that suggest women freely make a positive career choice based on a lack of moral fibre – and therefore should be punished – do not help. They get in the way of persuading the powers that be that properly funded housing and support services for women in prostitution are the answer, not punishment.

Despite Mark Butterworth's claims in his letter, there is still too much stick and not enough carrot. Very few bodies seek to provide the services to help prostitutes change. Projects working with women in prostitution or protecting girls at risk are thin on the ground and poorly funded.

Like many people in the supported housing sector, we work with people who behave in antisocial ways. We help them address this and reintegrate them into the community.

Using punishment to deal with the antisocial behaviour of women who have been punished all their lives is simply a non-starter, as recent Home Office research indicates.

I am not asking for people to have the right to behave badly and disrupt the lives of others.

I am saying that a bit of intelligent analysis of why they do what they do, and what would really help them to stop, might just generate more light than heat and help provide long-term answers.